Well, I think they should stick to another name instead of Queen. We're all entitled to our opinions.

And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?)

I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.

Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?

With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.

And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.

I think they're cowards too. And I think their concert was way below their level.

Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?

I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen.

With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.

This is a forum, so we're all here to post what we think. And what I think is what I posted. I'm not saying Fred was the band, I'm not saying Brian and Rog are bad musicians, I'm not denying Paul is marvellous. In fact, I've always said I think Brian + Roger + Paul are a wonderful combination of musicians, I think they've got great chemistry together and I think they could (and will) release high-class material. But they're not Queen, so it's IMO utterly opportunistic and coward to rely on it instead of using a new one (not related with their past). After all, they're a new band, playing new music, and (according to what Bri often claims) not living in the past.

And I assume Led Zeppelin are cowards then, for reuniting a couple of times with guest drummers yet labelling themselves "Led Zeppelin"...(?) I haven't seen anyone questioning the legitimacy of Led Zeppelin's use of that name.

I think they're cowards too. And I think their concert was way below their level.

You can't expect a bunch of 60-year-old guys to sound like a bunch of 25-year-olds, can you? Plant's vocal range alone limits them.

Sebastian wrote:

Maybe people are bitter about Queen using the name because it was the legendary lead singer who died, not the silent bassist or the average drummer...?

I personally would complain in any of those cases. Fred + Brian wouldn't be Queen. Fred + John wouldn't be Queen. Fred + Rog wouldn't be Queen. Bri + John wouldn't be Queen. Rog + John wouldn't be Queen, and of course, Bri + Rog aren't Queen.

The thing is, Freddie never said he wanted the band to finish. The only thing we know about his opinion on the subject is that he asked Brian, Roger and John to finish Made In Heaven.

After his death, Roger, Brian and John owned the name. John decided to leave, but he gave the other two permission to use the name (if Brian was lying about this, they could've been sued by now, right?).

Besides, from the interviews and from Brian's soapbox, we can tell they are working just like the old days, using all the Queen trademarks. Why change the name when we're getting pretty much the same we used to get back in the old days, only with a different voice?

Sebastian wrote:

With all respect, I love your website, I love the brilliant work you do in providing accurate info about Queen's music, but you sound like one of those annoying spammers like Treasure Moment when you enter threads just to moan about Q+PR.

This is a forum, so we're all here to post what we think. And what I think is what I posted. I'm not saying Fred was the band, I'm not saying Brian and Rog are bad musicians, I'm not denying Paul is marvellous. In fact, I've always said I think Brian + Roger + Paul are a wonderful combination of musicians, I think they've got great chemistry together and I think they could (and will) release high-class material. But they're not Queen, so it's IMO utterly opportunistic and coward to rely on it instead of using a new one (not related with their past). After all, they're a new band, playing new music, and (according to what Bri often claims) not living in the past.

See previous comment.

About this being a forum... Yep, you're entitled to show your opinion. But lately you've been writing your opinion in SEVERAL threads. I think we all have already gotten the point - you don't support the way they're using the name. If you keep repeating it over and over everytime someone gets excited about Q+PR news, we'll assume you're just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than yours.

Yet, once again I'll say... Nothing personal. I really respect you and your work.

I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves. I don't give a fuck if they call it Queen, Queen + Paul Rodgers, Queen II, Smile, Smile Again, Bad Queen Company, Queen Free, Freddie Mercury Was Gay, AIDS is the Cure or 3 Old Farts. As long as we'll get some new music and a great tour like in 2005/2006.

> You can't expect a bunch of 60-year-old guys to sound like a bunch of 25-year-olds, can you?

Did I say "their concert was shite because they didn't sound like the albums"? NO. I said "below their level", i.e. "below the level a 63 yo Page, a 59 yo Plant and a 61 yo Jones should have".

> The thing is, Freddie never said he wanted the band to finish.

He did say that if anyone left Queen, anyone of the four, that'd be the end of the band. Some bands work like football teams (Yes, for instance, or GnR), some others don't. I personally would love a McCartney + Starr + Clapton + Gilmour (for instance) tour, but that wouldn't be The Beatles. Not better, not worse, just not The Beatles (or Cream or Pink Floyd for that matter). Same case here. All of that, of course, IMO.

> The only thing we know about his opinion on the subject is that he asked Brian, Roger and John to finish Made In Heaven.

All in all I couldn't care less about Fred's opinion on the matter. I've got mine, and mine is... you know.

> After his death, Roger, Brian and John owned the name.

I'm not talking about law (of course they can call themselves Queen and I can't do anything to stop them), but about ethics, morality and integrity. Not in vain I call them "opportunistic cowards" rather than "dishonest thieves". Again, IMO.

> from the interviews and from Brian's soapbox, we can tell they are working just like the old days, using all the Queen trademarks.

I completely disagree there.

> Why change the name when we're getting pretty much the same we used to get back in the old days, only with a different voice?

Because it's a different band. Not only the voice has changed, but the music itself (Paul is more than a singer, he also plays instruments and composes). No Freddie-esque piano, no Deacy bass... that's not Queen. IMO.

> But lately you've been writing your opinion in SEVERAL threads. I think we all have already gotten the point - you don't support the way they're using the name. If you keep repeating it over and over everytime someone gets excited about Q+PR news, we'll assume you're just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than yours.

Do you think I won't be able to sleep if some QZers "assume (I'm) just trying to tease everybody whose opinion is different than (mine)"? No, I can live with that. It's a forum, so I can express my opinion on the matter (and the concept of "several" or "too many" times is relative) as much as I feel like it.

> I think it's strange that people care at all how they call themselves.

The world would be very boring if all people cared (or didn't care) about the same details.

In spite of the name, I wish they load the upcoming shows with new music and put a definitive end to all that stuff about 'trademark sounds', LOML sing-alongs and WWRY/WATC as final encores.

If they want to be a band again, then they have to be brave and build A BAND. Otherwise they'll do nothing but keep covering their own songs and live under Freddie's shadow (although they claim they don't do it anymore).